GUILTY FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen 18 July 2014 - *5 Guilty* #28

[Going Rogue]

50 years?? I didn't realize it was 50 YEARS! What's up with the DA's in that jurisdiction? I don't know anything about that case so I hesitate to comment on its merits but an aquittal in less than an hour is not encouraging.

I took Jack complainining at the conclusion of Donna's trial about how overworked and tired his prosecutors have been as an indirect way of complaining about the public's push for a Wendi arrest. What a lame comment from a DA! Just tell us where the case stands and put an end to the speculation. Wendi already thinks she won't be arrested so they're not giving anything away.

I think we may have a Charlie retrial before we get a Wendi trial.

I could be totally off, but after a quick review of that 50‑year‑old cold case, it’s hard not to wonder whether Tallahassee’s cold‑case unit pushed it forward to justify their existence. These units often need “results” to secure funding, and their job is simply to reopen a case and convince the DA to indict. I understand the jury’s verdict doesn’t affect their metrics. The one‑hour acquittal suggests the evidence was far too weak for trial, reinforcing the possibility that this was a marginal case elevated to make a number. I hate thinking this way, but I wonder?

 

[Zedzded]

I don’t see how the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that she entered into a conspiratorial agreement or that she committed an act in furtherance of the crime. They must prove at least one of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard, but it is not absolute certainty. I don't know whether WA's actions can be construed as to be part of a conspiracy. I feel the State will be able to demonstrate that WA's trip up Trescott were incriminatory. The jury will be easily persuaded that this was not some little drive to get alcohol, coincidently shortly after the ex she hated so much was shot dead. They're not in kindergarten. They will know she went there to see if Dan had been shot.

The question is whether that can be determined as conspiratorial. Was this a woman who feared her brother had actually carried out his threat to kill her beloved Danny or was this a woman, part of a conspiracy, driving to the crime scene to confirm their target was dead?

No jury member is going to sit there and think that WA had no clue Dan was going to be killed when she drove up Trescott. It's always been about her level of complicity and proof.

 

[Fromeaster]

Wendi will be left with all the family's wealth and money. I have no hope anymore, life is unfair. They could say the case is closed and move on.

 

[Going Rogue]

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard, but it is not absolute certainty. I don't know whether WA's actions can be construed as to be part of a conspiracy. I feel the State will be able to demonstrate that WA's trip up Trescott were incriminatory. The jury will be easily persuaded that this was not some little drive to get alcohol, coincidently shortly after the ex she hated so much was shot dead. They're not in kindergarten. They will know she went there to see if Dan had been shot.

The question is whether that can be determined as conspiratorial. Was this a woman who feared her brother had actually carried out his threat to kill her beloved Danny or was this a woman, part of a conspiracy, driving to the crime scene to confirm their target was dead?

No jury member is going to sit there and think that WA had no clue Dan was going to be killed when she drove up Trescott. It's always been about her level of complicity and proof.

In your analysis of the Trescott Drive evidence, you actually outlined the textbook definition of reasonable doubt. You wrote ~ “The question is whether that can be determined as conspiratorial. Was this a woman who feared her brother had actually carried out his threat... or was this a woman, part of a conspiracy?"

That specific question – is it A or is it B? – is exactly why the State has a problem. If the evidence allows for a reasonable hypothesis of innocence (that she feared Charlie had gone rogue and panicked), then a jury cannot lawfully convict her of conspiracy.

Being aware that her family was volatile, or even suspecting they might do something crazy, is not the same as entering into an agreement to commit murder. That is the legal gap the state has to bridge. You say that "no jury is going to think WA had no clue." Even if the jury believes she had a "clue" or a suspicion, that is not proof of a conspiratorial agreement.

Your reliance on phrases like "I feel," "I don’t know," and "the question is" highlights that this case relies on interpretation, not hard proof. We can’t simply say, "The jury isn't in kindergarten, they’ll figure it out." The state has to prove agreement and intent. Proving she was in the neighborhood doesn't prove she helped plan the murder.

 

[Zedzded]

In your analysis of the Trescott Drive evidence, you actually outlined the textbook definition of reasonable doubt. You wrote ~ “The question is whether that can be determined as conspiratorial. Was this a woman who feared her brother had actually carried out his threat... or was this a woman, part of a conspiracy?"

That specific question – is it A or is it B? – is exactly why the State has a problem. If the evidence allows for a reasonable hypothesis of innocence (that she feared Charlie had gone rogue and panicked), then a jury cannot lawfully convict her of conspiracy.

A argument could be that she knew Dan was going to be killed by CA, but was not involved in the plot, not part of the conspiracy. That opens up the door for a raft of other charges e.g accessory after, which I've discussed ad nauseum!

 

[Zedzded]

That specific question – is it A or is it B? – is exactly why the State has a problem. If the evidence allows for a reasonable hypothesis of innocence (that she feared Charlie had gone rogue and panicked), then a jury cannot lawfully convict her of conspiracy.

Her innocent explanation needs to be reasonable. e.g A tree could have fallen, that is a possibility, trees fall in storms. But once all the information is presented to the jury are they going to believe WA thought a tree had genuinely fallen? No. She didn't see a tree. There was no storm. There were no vehicles used for chopping up the tree. You don't need that many emergency vehicles for a fallen tree etc etc

The jury can still determine something happened even when they have minor uncertainties, unanswered questions etc Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean absolute certainty. If that was the case, no-one would ever get convicted and circumstantial evidence would be irrelevant.

This is why Lauro won't be able to defend WA's Trescott trip. The State don't have to prove she deliberately drove to the crime scene. They don't need a text from her to CA stating "I am driving to the crime scene to see if Dan is dead."

What they have is her driving to the crime scene when she could have taken a different, quicker route. Not stopping to check when she saw the emergency vehicles outside the house her kids were at (what a reasonable, rational mother would do) and then lying multiple times to LE officials about her trip. The lying cannot be defended and it is so critical in an important case such as this. Lies destroy credibility. Lies get people convicted. Hence the fact the USA has the 5th amendment, so people who are innocent don't say the wrong thing or lie and end up in prison.

 

[Going Rogue]

Her innocent explanation needs to be reasonable. e.g A tree could have fallen, that is a possibility, trees fall in storms. But once all the information is presented to the jury are they going to believe WA thought a tree had genuinely fallen? No. She didn't see a tree. There was no storm. There were no vehicles used for chopping up the tree. You don't need that many emergency vehicles for a fallen tree etc etc

The jury can still determine something happened even when they have minor uncertainties, unanswered questions etc Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean absolute certainty. If that was the case, no-one would ever get convicted and circumstantial evidence would be irrelevant.

This is why Lauro won't be able to defend WA's Trescott trip. The State don't have to prove she deliberately drove to the crime scene. They don't need a text from her to CA stating "I am driving to the crime scene to see if Dan is dead."

What they have is her driving to the crime scene when she could have taken a different, quicker route. Not stopping to check when she saw the emergency vehicles outside the house her kids were at (what a reasonable, rational mother would do) and then lying multiple times to LE officials about her trip. The lying cannot be defended and it is so critical in an important case such as this. Lies destroy credibility. Lies get people convicted. Hence the fact the USA has the 5th amendment, so people who are innocent don't say the wrong thing or lie and end up in prison.

Under Florida law, to prove a circumstantial case, the State effectively has to exclude any reasonable innocent explanation. The defense does not have to prove one.... it only has to point to a reasonable alternative that the evidence does not rule out.

You are confusing the 'innocent explanation' she gave police (the downed tree) with the 'reasonable hypothesis of innocence' the defense would present at trial. If we use the very example you gave for the Trescott drive - 'a woman who feared her brother had actually carried out his threat', then, as I said earlier, that unresolved A/B choice is the very definition of reasonable doubt. If your example is plausible (even if the jury believes she lied about the downed tree), they cannot lawfully convict her of the murder conspiracy.

 

[LinasK]

Wendi will be left with all the family's wealth and money. I have no hope anymore, life is unfair. They could say the case is closed and move on.

But they aren't probably because they are gathering more evidence on her/Harvey. They just have to feel comfortable enough that they have enough to bring it to trial. We have no idea what evidence they have on her. You don't say "Stay tuned" if you don't think that there's going to be more people that you will indict.

 

[Zedzded]

Under Florida law, to prove a circumstantial case, the State effectively has to exclude any reasonable innocent explanation.

Reasonable innocent explanation for what? Trescot?? That's not defensible. We've been through that 1000 times.

 

[Going Rogue]

Reasonable innocent explanation for what? Trescot?? That's not defensible. We've been through that 1000 times.

Yesterday you wrote:

"The question is whether that can be determined as conspiratorial. Was this a woman who feared her brother had actually carried out his threat to kill her beloved Danny or was this a woman, part of a conspiracy, driving to the crime scene to confirm their target was dead?"

I’m using your own example as the "reasonable hypothesis of innocence" for the drive. That was a scenario you offered as plausible – not me. If a jury thinks your example is plausible, that is the textbook definition of reasonable doubt.

You are getting hung up on the "fallen tree" story. You are arguing that because she likely lied about the tree, the drive is indefensible… but it is entirely plausible that both things are true:

1. She drove there because she feared her brother had acted on his threat (your example).​
2. She panicked and lied to the police about a tree to cover for her reason of being there (your example)​

If the jury believes that combination is possible, they cannot convict her of conspiracy to commit murder. The lie may prove she covered for them after the fact, but it does not prove she agreed to the murder before the fact. The burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your "fear" scenario is false and that the "conspiracy" scenario is the only truth.

If we were to rank the evidence against Wendi as argued on social media, the drive to Trescott is arguably number one. I completely disagree that it is "not defensible." A skilled defense attorney could use the exact logic you just laid out in your example I quoted OR use another explanation for her being there. The State would need to convince the jury that the alternate theory is not plausible.

A case against Wendi is not as black and white as outlined by everyone’s favorite YouTube pundit. The Tallahassee SAO has ALL the evidence, and as I have stated many times, there are ONLY two logical explanations why they haven’t charged her in nearly 12 years since Dan was murderd. I will spare the redundancy because I have stated those two reasons multiple times, but the delay speaks for itself.

 

[rescuemom]

I still believe that loyalty to WA will only last so long and either CA or DA will put their survival above that loyalty.

 

[Zedzded]

You are getting hung up on the "fallen tree" story. You are arguing that because she likely lied about the tree, the drive is indefensible… but it is entirely plausible that both things are true:

1. She drove there because she feared her brother had acted on his threat (your example).​
2. She panicked and lied to the police about a tree to cover for her reason of being there (your example)​

If the jury believes that combination is possible, they cannot convict her of conspiracy to commit murder. The lie may prove she covered for them after the fact, but it does not prove she agreed to the murder before the fact. The burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your "fear" scenario is false and that the "conspiracy" scenario is the only truth.

.

It's a moot point. Simply put, if the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she drove up Trescott, not to buy liquor, but to see if Dan had been shot, she is trouble. It might not be conspiracy, it might be another offence. Trescott is strong evidence strengthened by WA's deception which damages her credibility significantly.

 

[AnyNameIWish]

I still believe that loyalty to WA will only last so long and either CA or DA will put their survival above that loyalty.

Hasn't that ship sailed?
The party is over, he dishes have been cleaned up, the valets have gone home.

I would be shocked if CA Or DA play games to try to put their little WendiJill in jail. As for Donna she wouldn't do it for the sake of the grandkids. Charlie is a loose cannon but I don't think he'll say anything until after his parents are gone.

 

[Zedzded]

Hasn't that ship sailed?
The party is over, he dishes have been cleaned up, the valets have gone home.

I would be shocked if CA Or DA play games to try to put their little WendiJill in jail. As for Donna she wouldn't do it for the sake of the grandkids. Charlie is a loose cannon but I don't think he'll say anything until after his parents are gone.

I agree re DA. Re CA, I think he must have a lot of resentment towards WA. She threw his name under the bus multiple times. In the LE interview, on the phone to SY, and statements to JL. CA would know he got played by his sister. If he doesn't know, his lawyer would be taking great pleasure in telling him how he stands with his sister.

So if he has the opportunity to make a deal, I don't think he will hesitate to flip on her. Yes this will obviously damage relationships with family members, but then he doesn't see Rob, WA or DA. His Dad is miles away.

 

[Going Rogue]

It's a moot point. Simply put, if the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she drove up Trescott, not to buy liquor, but to see if Dan had been shot, she is trouble. It might not be conspiracy, it might be another offence. Trescott is strong evidence strengthened by WA's deception which damages her credibility significantly.

Saying “it might not be conspiracy” is not a moot point – it’s the entire point. We’re discussing whether the State can convict Wendi of conspiracy to commit murder, right? To do that, they must prove the elements of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. If, as you just stated, the Trescott drive‑by might only support “another offense,” then you’re agreeing with my position that the State does not have the evidence to prove she was a direct conspirator in the murder plot.

You’re also shifting the goalposts. You went from arguing that the State has a “winnable” murder‑conspiracy case to suggesting she might instead be “in trouble” for some other offense. I know we already discussed accessory‑after‑the‑fact, and those charges come with their own evidentiary hurdles. Just like conspiracy, it’s not about what you think happened – it’s about what you can actually prove in court.

 

[Weki]

Hasn't that ship sailed?
The party is over, he dishes have been cleaned up, the valets have gone home.

I would be shocked if CA Or DA play games to try to put their little WendiJill in jail. As for Donna she wouldn't do it for the sake of the grandkids. Charlie is a loose cannon but I don't think he'll say anything until after his parents are gone.

Even if Charlie would come out and say she knew, we talked about it together etc does that convict Wendi of conspiracy? I’m not sure. Charlie’s credibility would be shot. He took the stand and said this was a double extortion. If he gets a retrial because of the conflict issue who knows what defense he’ll use. By the time his appeals are exhausted, if he comes back looking for a deal and says Wendi knew, we all talked about it and it was done with her blessing. Idk how that is enough by itself to get Wendi arrested. Unless he provides some other corroborating evidence his say so alone is not enough. JMO